Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2017-09-25. For general Signpost discussion, see

Featured content: Flying high (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-09-25/Featured content

Gallery: Chicken mania (3,293 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

Why did the chicken cross the road? To read the Signpost on the other side! Then she came upon the final image of the semi-cremated corpse, took the red pill, and awoke to reality. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty funny Randy Kryn. So what dipping sauce do you like to order with your chicken-Mcnuggets? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The hot sauce from back in the day. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So really, what goes thru your head when someone yells at you, →"C H I C K E N !"?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means that they think you are afraid? Do we have an article yet on this English idiom? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,

Chicken Joke (note the "Duck Joke" on that page). Be well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Nice comment, Paine Ellsworth. I didn't find Yellow stripe down the back, either. Perhaps we need an Idiom-pedia. I know English has uncountable idioms and we have a multitude of them here in Pittsburgh. Guess what "Kennywood's open" means here. There is an amusement park here called Kennywood, but the idiom really isn't really about the park. Also in Haitian kreyol there aren't idioms, there are proverbs that folks quote as idioms. A language learner like myself has difficulty even distinguishing idioms from non-idioms and a reference work on idioms might be helpful.

Humour: Chickenz (1,125 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

• See also: Intensive animal farming § Chickens. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is funny, because of adding a "z" to the end? Not getting it.The age of fable (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only evil purpose of putting a 'z' on the end of the word chicken is to get editors to leave a comment on this discussion page. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues (4,330 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

Regarding the false quote persisting for 12 years on the German Wikipedia, "numerous scholars" is an overstatement on several levels. What the heck does "numerous" even mean here? A number somewhere between two and infinity? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous means that the signpost does not have enough writers, and I was in a rush to get it published quickly, so I picked a fairly apt number. In this case, numerous means "Looking for the false quote on Google produced only around 100 results, partial search increasing that number to only around 300 results." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope the Dubai project is using QRpedia; does anyone have a contact for Saqib Qayyum, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reading the paper. They say "Our back-of-the-envelope analysis thus has stark conclusions: even with many conservative assumptions, dissemination through Wikipedia is ∼1700x more cost-effective than traditional dissemination techniques. Thus, from a public policy perspective, funding the creation of content in public repositories of science like Wikipedia is compelling. We thus encourage governments, organizations, and publically-minded individuals to incorporate the creation of such articles into their activities and applaud those who are already advocating it". We should make sure this recommendation is also well disseminated. Leutha (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, the summary ought to put near the top, something along the lines of, "They got experts to write 88 Wikipedia science articles, randomly chose half to upload, and found that the phrases used in the published half appeared in later months in scientific journals far more often than those used in the not published half". I mean, this is what a randomized controlled experiment is. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was in the next building where the researcher from Pitt had his office, I invited myself over to discuss the research that he worked on with the other fellow at MIT. There were a lot more conclusions from the study that are described above. This study deserves a more detailed description in a future article in the Signpost. He even let me take his photo. I gently chided him for paying 'editors' to add is content and that there would be people watching out for him doing the same thing in the future. He thought that was funny and so did I. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in thinking that since the two have come to a settlement it doesn't set a legal precedent in the way that a court decision would? IE Animals still are not people and cannot claim a copyright on their works in the way that humans can? ϢereSpielChequers 07:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the selfie is posted above, does that mean the monkey uploaded his own selfie into commons? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL (149 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe (4,779 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

... "History of New York City" ... describes a topic very closely related to “New York City” and could at the same time easily be merged into the original article. This way of splitting up lengthy articles into several smaller ones ("summary style", more specifically "article size") may improve readability for human users, but seriously impairs many studies based on the “article-as-concept” assumption.

Does it? The split isn't solely based off of prose size but is proportional to coverage in secondary sources. I could write a history of a small town too, but that wouldn't warrant a split if the sourcing is all primary (e.g., if no secondary sources have conceptually addressed the history of the town), so we'd pare the history section of the town's article down to

Absolutely. Blithely assuming that a "History of X" article is the same as "X" is entirely unsafe. A topic of sufficient size can often have subsidiary articles on topics such as history, methods, cultural connections, and so on depending on its type. In the case of a major city with a large history, the primary article may contain a summarized history, with an article giving much more detail. Lists of books or films featuring the city would also rightly be subsidiary articles, not at all desirable in the primary article, even though they would unquestionably be "about" the city.

On a different point, if there is an unlinked article with "New York City" in its title, it cannot be difficult for a script to detect and propose a likely connection as a subsidiary article. "Vampires of New York City" (if it existed) for instance would presumably feature that city as an involved participant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blithely assuming that a "History of X" article is the same as "X" is entirely unsafe.

Where did I blithely assume this? My point was that "History of NYC" should be judged by sourcing specific to the topic intersection (on its own merits) and based on the reams of books specific to NYC's history, the split becomes appropriate. It's having the ability to determine when a subtopic is itself the subject of

significant coverage, and not simply the result of a size split. czar 13:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Erm, I wasn't addressing you, and I agree with your comments both above and below mine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't criticizing our decision to split. The issue is that some science/research projects use Wikipedia as a massive useful database of information. The feed it into software for automatic analysis. Their simplistic initial assumption was basically "every city has an article, and all information about the city is in that article". That works perfectly for the article "Tinytown, Ohio". The history of Tinytown is in that article, and they want it included. However they are now noticing that they haven't been pulling together all information about New York City. They are surprised and disappointed that their software is failing to include "History of New York City" in with the other New York City information. From their point of view, their New York City results are incomplete or biased. They understand and accept that any machine analysis is going to have flaws. From their point of view gathering subarticles in with the parent articles generally gives better results, even if the software occasionally screws up and incorporates an incorrect article. Alsee (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative (5,094 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

This reminds me of green stuff. Legoktm (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legoktm – yes, this issue had been raised a few times before, but the discussion never went anywhere. --Gnom (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a reliable source be provided for the statement "The carbon footprint of the many long-distance flights is far greater than that of the servers." Has any thought been given to purchasing

carbon offsets for airline travel? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi

the article makes it clear that less flights would be a significantly better option. But we should definitely look into the costs of buying offsets for an event like Wikimania. --Gnom (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, that "rough, rough, rough" estimate says that Wikimania airline travel generates 2.25 times as much CO2 as the servers. When I read "far greater", I was thinking that perhaps it was 100 times greater. Precision is better than vagueness, Gnom, and when very rough estimates are used as sources, that should be disclosed. Simply saying that "less flights" is a "significantly better option" requires much deeper analysis. What percentage of worldwide air travel supports the Wikipedia/Wikimedia movement? I think you will need a whole lot of zeroes to the right of the decimal point when you answer that question.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say. But my opinion is when we need to save our planet, everybody needs to do their part, including us Wikimedians. If you can help gather more precise information, I would very much appreciate it. --Gnom (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cullen³²⁸, representing statistics in the manner you advocate does nothing but bury the GHG problem, as we all contribute approximately 7 billionths to the problem, so "whatever" right? What's so wrong with jet-setting around? It is only when we act to reduce our consumption and develop carbon neutral sources, that any hope can be found. For those playing with statistics, to make themselves feel better, the only hope is someday they'll wake up with a newfound perspicacious illumination. Fingers crossed, right?

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer, regarding statistics, I simply ask that they be cited and summarized precisely rather than vaguely. What is wrong with that? As for reducing carbon emissions, I have consistently supported two highly effective green environmental organizations with regular financial donations for 41 years and operate only low emissions vehicles in my small business. I fly infrequently and have never attended Wikimania. All I ask is that decisions be made based on verifiable evidence rather than vague assertions. When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, I favor continuing to pick the low hanging fruit: increasing average motor vehicle fuel efficiency and increasing production of solar and wind power. Cancelling Wikimania would be about #́15,842 on my personal list of things to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer, then I'm gonna cheat on my tax, since there are millions of taxpayers and it won't make an appreciable difference. Are your ethics coming from the Trump administration? Tony (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a userbox

Thanks Salix alba! I've added that box to my user page. MeegsC (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications (1,827 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

• Glad to see Xtools back up czar 02:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When are they going to fix that annoying "Content Translation"? Every time I open a blank page on the Dutch Wikipedia that pop-up shows up. But I have switched off the option in Monobook-skin... The Banner talk 09:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish the WMF would wake up to the fact that it's not a tech company. Sadly, even after watching Flow fail, they persist with this structured conversations nonsense. It's proof they really don't care. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Really pleased that Flow / Structured Discussions is being worked on again. Flow was a brilliant starting point but needed a bit more work to cover all the use cases. It, or something like it, is sorely needed. Editing wikitext directly needs to become a thing of the past. WaggersTALK 10:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Fights and frights (1,061 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2017-09-25

Discuss this story

"the Environmental Protection Agency showed they learned from Harvey to ensure the [hurricane] damage wasn't as bad stateside" – surely you mean the Federal Emergency Management Agency? – ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per content at Hurricane Irma#Florida that is cited there, EPA is correct. The specific issue is hazardous materials, not general disaster or public/social services. DMacks (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate that somebody more familiar with US agencies didn't get a chance to work on this before publication. It really is FEMA first (see

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina) and EPA as a secondary, near incidental role. Bri.public (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]